ILNews

Opinions Dec. 1, 2010

December 1, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
William R.D. Britt v. State of Indiana
02A03-1004-CR-253
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery, Class D felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Britt’s counsel to introduce evidence of his brother Brandon’s prior robbery conviction.

Robert Segar v. State of Indiana
49A02-1003-CR-269
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Segar’s detention following an investigatory stop wasn’t supported by the requisite reasonable suspicion.

David E. Stutsman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1003-CR-187
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of two or more chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, Class D felony possession of methamphetamine, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Elizabeth Littlefield v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-266
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Demond Withers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1003-CR-182
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Michael Calhoun v. State of Indiana (NFP)
25A05-1003-CR-227
Criminal. Affirms partial denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence and denial of motion to correct error.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT